Kitano trying something different - is kind of something you expect from him. Now while he could have just been doing Yakuza or silly comedies, he goes ahead and does movies like this. It's about art - not just his decision, but what this movie is about. Now there is quite a lot of comedy in it and there is also quite a lot of violence in it too.

It is what he knows to do - and he is good in it. And while I did not look into if there is any autobiographical aspect to it, it does feel like he at least is chanelling something about himself. It may feel like small pieces sown together, but there is craft in that, making it compelling and interesting to see the road and determination of an artist. It is odd, but it is also really good

This is the third part of Beat Takashi Kitano's trilogy about artists (especially Takashi himself) and the creative process. The first film was Takashis and was an off beat semi-autobiographical look at director Takashi. The second film in the series is Glory to the Filmmaker. It concerns a filmmaker trying to come up with a way of completing his latest film. As of this writing I haven't seen it.

The last film in the sequence is this one, Achilles and the Tortoise.

The plot of the film has young Machisu Kuramochi meeting an artist as a child. The artist is impressed by the boys work and gives him words of encouragement. From that point on the boy does nothing but paint, through school, through marriage, through happy times and sad. Art is all. Unfortunately he never really tastes any sort of success seemingly just behind the curve of the happening artists.

To be honest I'm not sure what I think of the film. I'm not sure the story really hangs together. Essentially a three part film with three actors playing Machisu, one as a child, one as a young adult and Takashi himself playing the artist in middle age. Each part has a different feel. And the work as a whole left me feeling rather depressed.

The early part of the film is a bit awkward as Michisu is "discovered" and then moves to live with an uncle when his family is broken up by bankruptcy. It the film feels unfinished.

The second part of the film where our hero tries to sell his work, gets into art school and meets like minded people is a very funny destruction of artists and their drive for "art for arts sake".

The last part of the film, where Takashi takes over, is a darkly funny look at the extremes some people go to create.

This is a vicious destruction of "artists" and the world they exist in. Critics are savaged. Art dealers are shown for what they are. Artists and their attitudes are ridiculed. The public and its taste and ability to know what's good is roasted. It's a black comedy that leaves no one unhurt. Takashi lays waste to everyone and everything. Anyone in any sort of creative endeavor is torn apart.

This isn't to say that Takashi is against art or creating. He isn't and its clear from watching him create on screen (all of the paintings in the film are his, a fact that creates a weird sense of reality since his own paintings are being judged as poor when compared to his own paintings) that he loves to create, he's just against the attitudes of those who take their art too seriously (he doesn't hence his deconstruction of his life and work over the three films) and those who criticize or market the art. The only thing spared is the joy of creation (though this is a cautionary tale about letting that get too far out of hand).

I hope that Takashi enjoyed making the film, because I'm unsure about what to really say about it.

To be certain Takashi hits his targets with deadly and hysterical accuracy all along the way, but in the end I don't know what it all means. I was left wondering what the point was and why I bothered to stay all the way to the end. Okay, yes I know the reason I stayed, the bits carried me to the end, but when I got there I was kind of left wanting and unsatisfied. Perhaps the lack of meaning is the point, but at the same time I don't know why it took me two hours to get there.

Perhaps the films darkness and almost nihilism got to me. More than a fair number of people die both by their own hand and that of others (there is an undercurrent about suicide here). We also see the dark existence of some of the characters, for example Machisu's daughter becomes a prostitute to support her family. This is not a happy film despite the laughs. When it was over I was left in a very dark place.

What does it mean? I don't think it means anything. After seeing the film last night I sat down at the computer and tried to see if I could glean anything from what other people. Out of the six or seven pieces I read I got six or seven different interpretations. Everyone had the film speak to them in differing ways. Good "art" speaks to each of us in our own way and by that definition this would be good art, but then again so does a muddled mess.

Do I like the film? Yea, maybe, possibly. I like the bits. As a whole I'm not too sure. I don't think it all hangs together. For me its too mannered, too obviously constructed. I could pull it apart but I don't see the point. The films anti critical stance makes it a tough prospect (Though if I were to say something I'd say the first bit needs to be reworked. The middle section works and the final third needs to have an ending).

I think the film is worth trying, especially once you get to the middle section. Its almost required for anyone who has ever tried to create anything and had to put up with the slings and arrows of people "who know better". Its an interesting misfire with moments of brilliance.

Beyond that you're on your own. As for me I'm still pondering

Another relentless study by Kitano of an artist with no talent who refuses to give up, this goes on far too long and bludgeons the viewer with its relentless picture of a helpless sycophant trying to become a success by imitating his betters or copying trends that have just gone out of style. There is a disconnect between the early passages of the artist as a boy, which are fable-like, haunting, and touching (but also droll and odd) and the segments of the artist as an adult and "old" man (when Kitano himself takes over),the latter being simply a series of conceptual put-ons. Throughout the film is hurt by its suggestion that art of limited merit has no merit at all; that a child artist wouldn't produce anything of interest. And its later scenes are increasingly brutal and macabre. Another example of Kitano's limits as an "auteur." His work is distinctive and persistent, but there is a coldness, even a cluelessness, about it that is unappealing. The Allociné critic rating of 3.0/70 is full of raves, showing Kitano's strong "auteur" status among the French. Seen in Paris in April 2010.